Siduhe

Grateful for the clarification from our local councillors, but I share some of the concerns raised by urbanfox based on what has been described by others on this thread. There's no indication of who has been surveyed, which roads and/or individual houses have been selected and how. It's also not clear whether leaflets have been left for householders who are out when the Libdems call, or whether you have to be in your house for your opinion to be counted. And yet the results of the majority of this survey will be used to decide whether there's a formal request for a CPZ. I also don't quite understand the meaning of the comment above that "money from the developer for a formal review was agreed as part of the Planning Gain Section 106 agreement for 72 Grove Vale". Is the formal review being funded by developer money this survey now being conducted by the Libdems, or would it be the Stage One survey for the purposes of a CPZ? Should make clear, I'm pretty neutral about the idea of a CPZ - though it would probably stop me from using Lordship Lane for day to day (30 minute parking) food shopping as much as I currently do - I can understand residents' frustrations. I just believe that Southwark Council should be carrying out any surveys which are required in order to move to a formal Stage One CPZ request - so that whatever is done is in accordance with the constitution and the survey is statistically significant and valid.

I'm a bit confused about what this "survey" is. My understanding is that Southwark Council have to go through a 2 stage process to introduce a CPZ anywhere - and their website doesn't show Lordship Lane as currently being under Stage One survey. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/YourServices/transport/parking/cpzreviews/ Hmmm, even more curious, just spoke to someone at Southwark Parking who said that Southwark Council have no plans to introduce a CPZ on Lordship Lane and are not currently conducting any surveys in our area. So, what is the purpose of the LibDems conducting this survey, if it's not an official Southwark Council survey? What is the information going to be used for?

True (at least the colonisation of South London, not sure about the great escape). The best explanation I've heard for that was that "Jimi Hendrix released them in the 1960s to add a touch of psychedelia to the monochromes of Britain". http://www.guardian.co.uk/britain/article/0,2763,1507643,00.html They regularly stop off in our tree of a sunny morning. Big flock in Richmond Park too.

Not sure how many of you will have seen this (rather similar) report on the SE1 site... http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3125

DrewHill, have a look at 81(3), 81(4) and 81(5) of the link I gave above. In short, the council has wide-ranging powers to take steps to enforce the EPA, but the reality is that they will only exercise these powers in the most extreme and serious of cases where there is a general public interest for them to spend taypayers' money doing so - if there was a risk for example that the houses might collapse. I'm no expert on this kind of thing, but I understand that a lot of the time in these situations, the people who own houses in this state of disrepair are simply overwhelmed by their upkeep, or have other social or medical issues, or are simply too old to cope rather than being deliberately negligent or anti-social - support in these cases is always going to be a lot more effective than legal proceedings. What you describe sounds a bit different - assume these properties are privately owned? Have you got copies of the title deeds/reg certificate from the Land Registry (about ?2/3 per copy and will tell you the current legal owner)? If the houses are empty, then the Empty Homes Initiative would definitely be my first port of call. If the owner is genuinely willing to do up the property but lacks funds, they may be able to help. If the owner is simply uncooperative, you've improved your chances of getting Southwark to take the statutory nuisance route. The biggest practical problem is going to be finding out how serious the issues with the houses are - scaffolding might be up for a number of reasons, how do you show it's subsidence? Again the EHI may have some ideas about this or you and your neighbours could club together and employ a surveyor to do an external inspection.

Yes, there is a duty to your neighbours, but it is only actionable in certain circumstances. A "private nuisance" is caused by a person doing something on his own land, which he is lawfully entitled to do, but which becomes a nuisance when the consequences of his act extend to the land of his neighbour by, for example, causing physical damage. A private nuisance is actionable in tort. So you would have to demonstrate that the scaffolding is causing you or your property actual, quanitifiable/provable harm (beyond the fact that it looks a mess or is generally letting the street down). That may be hard to do, based on what you have described. I agree that you should contact your local Council. Councils are under a duty to serve an abatement notice in respect of any statutory nuisance they have identified. In particular, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides that "the authority shall serve a notice" prohibiting or requiring the abatement of the nuisance or requiring the execution of works and other steps necessary to abate the nuisance. Premises which are kept in a state "as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance" will be considered as a statutory nuisance (s.79(1)). Have a look at section 82 as well.

I also get cabs from Blackfriars to ED very regularly and without too many problems. I have learned to say Lordship Lane (only a very occasional rejection) rather than Peckham Rye or Forest Hill (lots more rejections) [we're at the very bottom end of Lordship Lane nr the Harvester]. Most of the cabs I have taken recently have been bemoaning the lack of customers due to the credit crunch. Think you have been a bit unlucky. May well be related to the size of your group - cab drivers don't generally like taking 4-5 people who've been out partying, however well behaved. They always remember the last person who threw up in their cab and assume you may be the same. One thing that used to work for us is to split up your group into boys and girls, looking as if you're looking for cabs on opposite sides of the road. Then when a cabbie rolls up to the girls and agrees to take them to ED, the boys can run over and get in.

Bye-Bye-Barry...

A 2007 DoT survey estimated that 6% of cars in regular use were untaxed. It also concluded that these drivers were more likely to flout traffic and parking laws because they were at less risk of being caught and fined (due to the fact their cars are unregistered). Can't find a direct ref, but here's a link to the AA press release about it. http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/roadtax-evasion-feb2007.pdf

Not sure if this is the kind of thing you are interested in, but Barry Road appears (in part) on the Booth Poverty Map of 1898 which I find a pretty fascinating snapshot of life in London and how it's changed. It's firmly at the mixed/comfortable/middle class end of the spectrum. The last flat I lived in was smack bang middle of what would have been a black/dark blue area (not in leafy SE22 I hasten to add)... Hope the link works, if not it's right at the Southern edge of the Poverty Map http://booth.lse.ac.uk/cgi-bin/do.pl?sub=view_booth_and_barth&m.l=1&m.d.l=0&m.p.x=10823&m.p.y=11199&m.p.w=500&m.p.h=309&m.p.l=0&m.p.p.l=1&m.t.w=128&m.t.h=80&b.p.x=18838&b.p.y=17104&b.p.w=500&b.p.h=309&b.p.l=1&b.v.x=192&b.v.y=228

I don't know which data the Lib Dems or the OP are referring to, but there's some useful stuff at the Neighbourhood Statistics website which shows a downwards trend of certain notifiable offences such as Violence against the Person. I don't know enough about the subject to understand if this reflects a drop in crime (as claimed) or a drop in the number of offences that count as "notifiable" for these purposes: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=3&b=276770&c=SE22+0AQ&d=13&e=3&g=345119&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&p=8&q=1&r=0&s=1201536265921&enc=1&dsFamilyId=904

The entire list of Safer Communities numbers is on the Met website - the Southwark page is here. You need to work out which Ward you are in (may not necessarily be what you think) but the Southwark Council site will tell you this too. I'm in College Ward (Upper East Side, dontcha know) and our SC contact details are 020 8721 2442 or 07920 233916. I found the team very helpful the one time I needed to contact them.

I use City Airport a lot and am a big fan. Pluses as set out above. There are a few down sides though - the fares are more expensive (although arguably balanced out by the lack of need to travel to Heathrow or Gatwick) and the services are (IMHO) much more prone to being delayed or cancelled, particularly because of weather (presumably because it's a much smaller airport with smaller planes). Usually only a 20-30 minute delay, but there isn't a whole lot you can do in that time. Take a good book would be my advice.

Depending the type of house the OP has, another fairly common distraction technique is to engage the householder at the front door, perhaps by asking in great detail for directions or staging an argument about the best route to take, whilst an accomplice jemmys a door or window out back and makes off with goods within reach. Laptop computers or mobile phones which can be seen through a window normally. Chances are this was all perfectly innocent, but if you're alone in the house, why take the risk? I know I wouldn't.

And much like the one that still exists at the Melford Road/Wood Vale intersection, where accidents still occur regularly because people don't treat it like a roundabout but drive straight over the centre and into the path of oncoming traffic from the right? Luckily, it isn't a spot where many pedestrians cross, so there's been nothing like the terrible accident further down the road. However, one of the houses on Wood Vale has had its front wall/gate driven into four times in the last two years.

Kind of back on topic... We've had take out from the Sea Cow a few times recently. Fish has always been good - couple of times when they haven't had what we planned, we've followed a recommendation and really enjoyed the results. Chips aren't of the same standard - undercooked and a bit limp. If Paul's up for a bit more constructive criticism, I did want to mention something that happened the only time I have eaten in the restaurant (mid last year). I tend to pay my food bills and leave a tip in cash rather than on a card. The bill came to ?26 odd and I handed over ?30, expecting to get my change and then leave most/all as a tip. In fact, my change wasn't handed back to me but put automatically into the tronc without any indication from me. I mentioned it to the waitress, and her response was, "oh, sorry, most of our customers just expect us to keep the change". She immediately offered to give me my change back, but I'd actually been planning to give it to her anyway. Just rankled a bit that she'd made the decision for me and made me feel like a cheapskate for considering giving less than 15% tip. We've not been back to the restaurant.

philiphenslowe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Forest Hill baths used to be good but I haven't > been there for years Forest Hill Pool was closed in spring 06 due to concerns about the safety and integrity of the roof. To cut a long story short, the Council is considering options for refurbishment (after a prolonged campaign by residents to prevent them being closed for good). http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/LeisureAndCulture/SportAndLeisure/NewDevelopments/ForestHillPools/

For me, this is where internet banking comes into its own. I now check my current account and credit card online every other day. About six months ago I spotted two small transactions (?15 and ?20), a couple of days apart, that I didn't immediately recognise (one for petrol and one to a mobile phone company). I phoned my bank, never once imagining that this was fraud, more that I'd forgotten something I'd brought. They put a hold on the account as a precaution. Six hours later, someone tried to buy a ?2,500 computer online using my credit card details. As MP says, I would have got the money back, but I'd rather not have gone through that kind of stress. The fraud department told me that it's common for people who buy cloned credit card and current account details to put a couple of small transactions through to check they are genuine and haven't been flagged up yet as stolen or cloned. I also use a unique password (alphanumeric) that isn't my home address or a birthday/name combination for online banking and never ask the PC to "save my details" (as anyone with a bit of computer knowledge can bypass the login password on a Windows PC).

To add a little balance to my earlier post, we popped into the Plough for a Sunday afternoon drink/papers session (2-3pm ish). Absolutely crawling (quite literally) with families and children, but all impeccably behaved as well. Highchairs also in evidence.

Asset, won't be much comfort to you, but our experience last night of Bombay Bicycle Club was quite different. Ordered online, got a confirmation email, a phone call to say they were running 10 minutes late or so, and the food actually turned up 15 minutes ahead of the end of the time slot. That said, experience of the food was a bit mixed - the prawn curry was lovely and spicy - the chicken a lot more bland. The daal was excellent. Also agree with others that the naan bread isn't up to much. Would give it another try but have had better.

Whilst there are undoubtedly people who take a more extreme approach at either end of the childed/childfree spectrum, I suspect a lot more people (like me) fall into the middle camp - very happy to share our public spaces with children providing that our own enjoyment of that same space isn't compromised to an unacceptable standard. I should make clear that no-one (at least not me) expects children to behave like adults, and occasional tears, tantrums and raised voices are par for the course, so some compromise is to be expected. However, I've had some terrible experiences since moving to this part of the world a number of months ago, which have actively made me seek out places that are less child friendly. Children running freely round pubs at 9pm without being controlled in any way. A child at the next table trying to help itself to my food not once, but several times. A child having a terrible twos tantrum being allowed to continue screaming at ear splitting pitch and roll around on the floor for about 10 minutes, without being taken outside by a parent away from everyone else who was trying to enjoy their own lunch. Finally, and most upsettingly for me, a child walking past and striking a much smaller baby who because she was sitting on the floor next to our table and was (and I'm quoting here) "in [his] way". When the baby's parents went over to speak to his parents, who looked like normal, nice people, I was amazed to hear them be told that "kids will be kids and it's better not to make a fuss about it". Until we as a community get some kind of handle on a generally acceptable level of behaviour for children in public spaces, this issue is going to come up again and again. Perhaps adopting Alan's suggestion would help, by encouraging people who impose reasonable standards of behaviour on their children to get out more often. Perhaps it would make things worse, I just don't know. I also don't want to tar all children and parents with the same brush - I'm sure there are loads of us out there who really do try and make it work - but I am just astounded at the number of people who couldn't seem to care less if their child ruins the eating out experience for someone else. What I can say is that I have gone in a short space of months from someone who would very happily argue for the rights of parents to take their children out into any public space they choose, to someone who actively seeks out less child friendly venues. It also seems to be a particular issue in this part of the world (although maybe I've just been unlucky?) or at least very different from what I have experienced living in Blackheath and then Borough over the last few years.

SimonM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 12th Night is 5th January not 6th! > > SimonM (pedants'r'us) Quite right (and hardly pedantry :)))- I remembered there was some confusion about precisely when it is - thought it was between 6/7 Jan - turns out it is between 5/6 Jan. So we now mark Twelfth Night from sunset on 5 Jan, and consider Twelfth Day is 6th Jan - unless you're Austrian, Maltese or Dutch by the looks of it, when you mark it on 6 Jan. Interestingly, it looks like we Brits used to celebrate it on Jan 6th as well, but now don't... http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/book/jan5.html#whyjan5

I don't think it's a hard and fast rule but I was always taught that Christmas decorations were taken down on Twelfth Night (which is 6th Jan in Western Europe). It's the end of the 12 days of Christmas (the Epiphany) and you get to drink wassail punch whilst so doing (which tends to relieve the boredom). Alternatively when your Christmas tree starts to go brown...

That's my understanding, NED=Non Educated Delinquent, or NEDDY=Non Educated Delinquent Dosser and Yob http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/1435245.stm

Just my 0.02, but I think a far better approach than "f-off" or reporting them, would be to walk over next time they do it. Look them in the eye and introduce yourself "Hi, I'm [name]" and say that their behaviour and that kind of language is making you really uncomfortable and you just wanted them to know that. It's much harder to shout that kind of stuff at someone who's name you know and in my experience, even if the ringleader is too much of an idiot to respond, his mates may think twice about indulging him.